Re: [Lsr] Flooding Topology Computation Algorithm - draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-08 Working Group Adoption Call

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

Les & Tony

Please see my replies inline

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 1:49 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Tony/Gyan –
>
>
>
> Please find my replies inline.
>
>
>
> *From:* Lsr <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of * [e-mail]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:48 AM
> *To:* Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; Huaimo Chen <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem
> (acee) <acee=[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Flooding Topology Computation Algorithm -
> draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-08 Working Group Adoption Call
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Gyan,
>
>
>
>
>
> This is a much needed feature that operators have been needing for densely
> meshed topologies that commonly exist in data centers to accommodate very
> high bandwidth E-W traffic.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Please look at the feature description and it does seem to be exactly the
> same as this draft.  Please confirm.
>
>
>
>
>
> It would appear to be a different, proprietary, and unpublished algorithm.
>
>
>
>
> *[Les:] Yes, this is a different algorithm than either
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-lsr-dynamic-flooding-algorithm/
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-lsr-dynamic-flooding-algorithm/>
> or  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction/
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction/>*
>
* <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction/>*
>
> *We are contemplating submitting a draft for this algorithm to the WG.*
>
> * Gyan> I think that would  be good for your customers so it’s not
> proprietary.*
>
>
>
>
>
> This will give us three different implementations, using three different
> algorithms, none of which will inter-operate.  Whee!!! :-(
>
>
>
>
>
> *[Les:] As I understand it, draft-chen only supports centralized mode –
> which is why it is Informational track and does not have interoperability
> concerns.*
>
> *Sarah/Tony - do you have plans to extend this to support distributed mode
> and then standardize it?*
>
>
>
> *At present there are no standard algorithm candidates which have achieved
> WG status – though that likely will change very soon.*
>
> *And the point of allowing multiple standardized algorithms to be defined
> was in the expectation that more than one might be proven useful.*
>
> * Gyan> So along those same lines in theory we could have hypothetically 3
> algorithms and all three on standards track which would give operators like
> Verizon and 3 options to pick from based on the physical topology use case.*
>
*Caveat would be - would vendors really want to develop other vendors
> options at a cost especially if there are more then two or rather keep
> their own option proprietary.  I think *
>
There maybe other features that you could get away with interoperability
> not being a concern but I think the flooding algorithm I would think would
> have to be the same for 2 vendors to be interoperable.
>
> There maybe other vendors due to industry demand have to get the feature
> deployed before it reaches standards vendor consensus with the IETF.
>
>
>
>
>
> Our implementation shipped last year.
>
>
>
> *[Les:] As did Cisco’s.*
>
>
>
>
>
> We are testing this feature and planning to deploy but wanted to ensure
> that this is the same as the draft on the standards track.
>
>
>
>
>
> It does not appear to be, but someone from Cisco should confirm.
>
>
>
> *[Les:] Confirmed.*
>
>
>
> *   Les*
>
>
>
> Tony
>
>
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *



*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD